[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120524001831.GQ25351@dastard>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:18:31 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab+slob: dup name string
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 06:50:57PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 06:48 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 May 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> >>>>So, why not simply patch slab to rely on the string lifetime being the
> >>>>cache lifetime (or beyond) and therefore not having it take a copy?
> >
> >Well thats they way it was for a long time. There must be some reason that
> >someone started to add this copying business.... Pekka?
> >
> The question is less why we added, but rather why we're keeping.
>
> Of course reasoning about why it was added helps (so let's try to
> determine that), but so far the only reasonably strong argument in
> favor of keeping it was robustness.
I'm pretty sure it was added because there are slab names
constructed by snprintf on a stack buffer, so the name doesn't exist
beyond the slab initialisation function call...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists